Re: Egypt Revolts! Looks like we have more Military Rule, not Democracy

Using the Gaza strip is bad because the palestinians are divided between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank so you have two voices speaking for what is supposed to be one state and neither technically respect each other.

By that logic, any comparisons to the US government aren't valid either since the House of Representatives is controlled by one party and the Senate and entire Executive Branch is controlled by the other, and there are multiple voices that not everyone has voted for. Are you starting to pick and choose which democracies are valid in your eyes? That seems to be the case here.

Then you go on a notion about War, do you honestly think that Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood would want to go to War with Israel?

Under the right circumstances? Yes.

Their nation is broke, wars cost money, military equipment costs money and they know if they go to war there would be economic and political sanctions and they risk isolating their nation and causing a huge refugee crisis. It wouldn't take much for Israel to win that war, מלחמת ששת הימים, ring a bell? A war would be devastating and for a rebuilding Egypt even with the Muslim Brotherhood at the helm it would be in their best interests to foster relations with the west for IMF and other international funds to rebuild their nation especially if they don't they risk a coup from the military or another uprising from the people. Muslim Brotherhood needs stability and economic recovery, a war would be counter to both, even the most hardline pressed islamist in Egypt knows that.

No shit, I have (and others have) been saying that for the past 18 months.

When fear is set aside and common sense prevails it makes sense.

If fear is set aside and common sense prevails, then yes, you are correct. But if the Muslim Brotherhood's domestic policy doesn't work out fast enough and they sense trouble, Israel is a good for uniting the people around a common cause, even if it doesn't solve the pressing economic issues.

Want proof? That is why Iran for all its talk, about how much it hates Israel has yet to fire a single missile in its direction (directly not through proxy groups ala Hezbollah), and thats been the situation since the 70s!

Iran hasn't fired a nuclear warhead in Israel's direction because it doesn't have any yet. Rational action in the eyes of religious fanatics isn't usually rational in the eyes of others, and plenty of people are willing to put themselves in harm's way to do what they consider to be "right." You seem to be ignoring that possibility because as the case often seems to be, you don't acknowledge that other people don't share your viewpoints and/or you don't recognize the realities on the ground or that others may not see things the way you do.

Israel by definition and by the actions of the government to its people are true of a real democracy, however its foreign policy is counter to it. Especially with the use of things like White Phosphorus, bulldozing houses, and illegal settlements (under international law).

Let's assume for a moment that Israel actually does all of the "war crimes" and other "illegal activities" you claim it does. So because the Palestinians don't have a "real democracy", whatever that means to you, they don't have to play by the rules either, and can use human shields, shoot rockets at civilian areas in Israel proper (about 50 in the past 24 hours, by the way), and divert humanitarian goods for its war effort? Many UN and other observer group's initial reports about Israeli actions during Operation Cast Lead have been redacted after the fact, with far less fanfare than their initial release. If you think settlement expansion is the only barrier to a peace accord between the Israelis and the Palestinians, you are very mistaken. And where is your outrage over the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus and all the other supposedly illegal occupations per international law around the world? And you cite how Israel won the Six Day War, how come Israel can't build and develop the territory it won during a war the way other countries do? Perhaps the Arabs shouldn't have attacked Israel time and time again, because there is always a chance you'll lose (and they did).

However even if the Brotherhood came to power Israel wouldn't face the doomsday scenario you think might happen

You can predict the future? When is the Second Avenue Subway opening?

the article you posted said it best "I think they will be very careful not to dismantle it. These uprisings have nothing to do with Israel. Israel isn’t the reason, and Israel isn’t the solution."

How closely did you read the interview? Again, if common sense prevails, then yes, the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't try to dismantle the peace treaty. But that is if and only if common sense prevails. I've already explained a likely scenario of what might happen if common sense, as seen by you and me, does not prevail. Part of the issue here is that while you and I both agree that Egypt needs to address its domestic problems, we don't agree (and you fail to acknowledge the possibility even) on what might happen if the new government fails to address those domestic issues to the satisfaction of the Egyptian people.

Perhaps by being more vocal and supportive of freedom and democracy in Egypt perhaps you might be able to keep the treaty and secure the borders with Egypt even with the Muslim Brotherhood in power.

George W. Bush told Israel to go along with his idea for democratic elections in the Palestinian Territories, Israel was hesitant because of a potentially very bad outcome for Israel (Hamas winning), and look what happened. You make things far simpler than they actually are.

You managed to get a treaty with a dictator... so how hard can it be?

You might want to read up on your history, the peace treaty was signed by Anwar al-Sadat, not Hosni Mubarak. Sadat paid for it with his life. He signed the peace treaty because he finally realized that it was better to accept Israel's existence and move on with other priorities than to keep fighting an endless war, something that other Arab governments ought to do as well if you ask me. The Muslim Brotherhood, among other organizations, discouraged Egyptians from taking advantage of the peace treaty, so there are virtually no tourists or businesspeople coming to Israel from Egypt, only the other way around (and now, there probably isn't much of a flow in that direction either). And as I've said, things in the real world are much harder and more complex than you make them out to be.

You might want to read up on your history, facts, and my prior posts. Perhaps then you'll understand a bit more what is at stake and why some people on this board are disagreeing with your outlook.

Re: Egypt Revolts! Looks like we have more Military Rule, not Democracy

Iran hasn't fired a nuclear warhead in Israel's direction because it doesn't have any yet. Rational action in the eyes of religious fanatics isn't usually rational in the eyes of others, and plenty of people are willing to put themselves in harm's way to do what they consider to be "right." You seem to be ignoring that possibility because as the case often seems to be, you don't acknowledge that other people don't share your viewpoints and/or you don't recognize the realities on the ground or that others may not see things the way you do.

Really? Its been the 70s and Iran hasn't attacked Israel... and they know that Israel has nukes, Iran wouldn't use Nukes in a first strike because it would be suicidal, they would likely use it as a deterrent to prevent Israel from attacking it in the first place since Israel is keen on using a quick first strike capability, a nuclear deterrent would basically say "you attack us, tel avid ceases to exist" and it would be counter to what they want since likely any nuclear attack would have radiation fallout that would affect people in Palestinian Territories, Syria, Jordan, Egypt as well. Once again I stress, common sense trumps fear. You're scared of an attack that hasn't happened in over 30 years.

I can say the doomsday scenario won't happen because it didn't happen with Iran... if it doesn't happen with a nation with a clear military and weapon capability then what would make a poor nation with barely a pulse want to pursue a war? To distract people? That's a horrible theory. Unrealistic... as for that quote that I posted that was from your article... so obviously I read it. Obviously you didn't...

Your fear is so overreaching that the decisions lack proper common sense.

Re: Egypt Revolts! Looks like we have more Military Rule, not Democracy

Wars are never started for rational reasons. Look at World Wars, Episode II: the Fascist Menace. Do you consider it entirely rational on the part of Germany?

I disagree, the reasons can be quite rational. Japan, for instance, did it as a power grab to create their own sphere of influence/empire, so that they wouldn't be under the thumb of the Western powers.

Re: Egypt Revolts! Looks like we have more Military Rule, not Democracy

It does cost a lot, but Japan wasn't starting from scratch when WWII started. By 1941, they already had an army, navy, and air power, and they all proved themselves against China and Russia. With Britain, France, and the Netherlands tied up with Germany, it came down to stopping, or at least delaying, a United States response. By smashing the US Pacific fleet and its base at Pearl Harbor, Japan could grab the territory they needed to create their empire, and with the raw materials they now had access to, create a war machine that would force the US to give up trying to retake the territory. It was a calculated risk, and Japan miscalculated, among other things, but I wouldn't call it irrational.

Re: Egypt Revolts! Looks like we have more Military Rule, not Democracy

The Pearl Harbor attack was in advancement of the war they wanted against the United States. I'm not saying it wasn't a risk worth taking, I'm saying that the war against the US in general was a bad idea. Empires are expensive and not worthwhile. HOWEVER at the time the opposite was believed so it wasn't totally irrational.

Re: Egypt Revolts! Looks like we have more Military Rule, not Democracy

Figures you don't address the fact that there are rockets being shot from Gaza into Israel right now, or that the accusations of Israel violating the rules of war were redacted after the fact.

I already explained how Iran didn't have the capability to nuke Israel and still doesn't, and how what might seem rational to you might not seem rational to others. You could seem to care less about anything that doesn't fit your own worldview. I don't think it is paranoid to think Iran and/or Egypt might try (again) to wipe Israel off the map in the future, especially based on past history and recent rhetoric. I'm not alone, either.

Re: Egypt Revolts! Looks like we have more Military Rule, not Democracy

We can say it's a bad idea because we can look at it with 20/20 hindsight. However, IF the Japanese had destroyed the oil storage tanks at Pearl, AND if Midway wasn't such a rout, the results may not have been so cut-and-dried. Furthermore, at the time, to be a world power you needed the raw materials from which to build things, and to ensure a relatively steady supply, you took the lands which had them. Japan looked at Britain, France, Germany, etc., and decided to follow their model.

Re: Egypt Revolts! Looks like we have more Military Rule, not Democracy

Dunno if national socialism is a standalone philosophy. Nasser seems to have thought so. Certainly the creators of Ba'athism seem to have thought so as well, borrowing so much from Nazism (pan-Arabism copied from pan-Germanism, one-party states, hatred of Jews, ad nauseam).

Re: Egypt Revolts! Looks like we have more Military Rule, not Democracy

You sure? We fought a lot of Proxy wars with the USSR... Vietnam, Korea all proxy wars with the USSR. Iran is all bark and no bite, that have to bark in order to be heard they got nothing else, and with how dense the Middle East is nation wise, a nuclear strike by Iran on Israel would have devastating consequences for Egypt and the Suez Canal in terms of radiation, for Joran, Syria, Gaza Strip and West Bank. I always saw nukes as a deterrent more than a first strike especially since its widely accepted that Israel has nuclear warheads and possibly even submarines with Nukes on board as well. So you get a nuclear deadlock, you can even compare the government of Iran right now with Japans government during WWII,

Re: Egypt Revolts! Looks like we have more Military Rule, not Democracy

I base it, more or less, on the fact that the US/USSR proxy wars were almost always set among the proxies (with varying levels of direct involvement of the 2 powers). Iran, OTH, is using at least one proxy to directly threaten and attack Israel, something that the USSR and the US never really did (Cuba is the closest, though no shots were actually fired).

Marxist socialism was degraded to a concern only with pay or the stomach. The bourgeoisie degraded nationalism into barren hyper-patriotism. Both concepts, therefore, must be cleansed and shown to the people anew, in a crystal-clear form. The nationalism of our worldview arrived at the right moment. Our movement seized the concept of socialism from the cowardly Marxists, and tore the concept of nationalism from the cowardly bourgeois parties, throwing both into the melting pot of our worldview, and producing a clear synthesis: German national Socialism. That provided the foundation for the rebuilding of our people. Thus this revolution was National Socialist.

Egypt Revolts—Muslim Brotherhood candidate WINS presidency

Islamist Morsi named Egypt's president

By Maggie Michael and Sarah El DeebAssociated Press / June 24, 2012

CAIRO—Islamist Mohammed Morsi was declared the winner Sunday in Egypt's first free presidential election in history, closing the tumultuous first phase of a democratic transition and opening a new struggle with the still-dominant military rulers who recently stripped the presidency of most of its powers.

In Tahrir Square, the birthplace of the uprising that ousted autocratic President Hosni Mubarak, joyous Morsi supporters wept and kneeled on the ground in prayer as soon as they heard the outcome announced live television. They danced, set off fireworks and released doves in the air with Morsi's picture attached in celebrations not seen in the square since Mubarak was forced out on Feb. 11, 2011.

Many are looking now to see whether Morsi will try to take on the military and wrestle back the powers they took from his office just one week ago. Thousands vowed to remain in Tahrir to demand that the ruling generals reverse their decision.

"I pledge to be a president who serves his people and works for them," Morsi said on his official web page. "I will not betray God in defending your rights and the rights of this nation." He was scheduled to address the nation Sunday night in his first speech after being declared president.

The White House congratulated Morsi and urged him to advance national unity as he forms a new government. White House press secretary Jay Carney said Morsi's victory is a milestone in Egypt's transition to democracy after decades of authoritarian rule under Mubarak. The Obama administration had expressed no public preference in the presidential race.

Left on the sidelines of the political drama are the liberal and secular youth groups that drove the uprising against Mubarak, left to wonder whether Egypt has taken a step towards becoming an Islamist state. Some grudgingly supported Morsi in the face of Ahmed Shafiq, who was Mubarak's last prime minister, while others boycotted the vote.

Morsi will now have to reassure them that he represents the whole country, not just Islamists, and will face enormous challenges after security and the economy badly deteriorated in the transition period.

"It is time we work all as Egyptians as part of a national consensus to build Egypt that is based on freedom and social justice," he wrote on his Twitter account.

The elections left the nation deeply polarized with one side backing Shafiq, who promised to provide stability and prevent Egypt from becoming a theocracy. Because of his military career, many saw him as the military's preferred candidate.

In the other camp are those eager for democratic change and backers of Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood who were persecuted, jailed and banned under Mubarak but now find themselves one of the two most powerful groups in Egypt.

The other power center is the ruling military council that took power after the uprising and is headed by Mubarak's defense minister of 20 years.

Just one week ago, at the moment polls were closing in the presidential runoff, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) issued constitutional amendments that stripped the president's office of most of its major powers. The ruling generals made themselves the final arbiters over the most pressing issues still complicating the transition-- such as writing the constitution, legislating, passing the state budget-- and granted military police broad powers to detain civilians.

"I am happy the Brotherhood won because now the revolution will continue on the street against both of them, the Brotherhood and the SCAF," said Lobna Darwish, an activist who has boycotted the elections.

Also, a few days before that constitutional declaration, a court dissolved the freely elected parliament, which is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, leaving the military now in charge of legislating.

Brotherhood members and experts said the results were used a bargaining chip between the generals and the Brotherhood over the parameters of what appears to be a new power-sharing agreement. The country's new constitution is not written and the authorities of the president are not clear.

This is the first time modern Egypt will be headed by an Islamist and by a freely elected civilian. The country's last four presidents over the past six decades have all came from the ranks of the military.

"Congratulations because this means the end of the Mubarak state," said Shady el-Ghazali Harb, a prominent activist who was among the leaders of the protests in January and February last year.

The results of the elections were delayed for four days amid accusations of manipulation and foul play by both sides, raising political tensions in Egypt to a fever pitch.

The delay plunged the country into nerve-wrecking anticipation and pushed tensions to a fever pitch. Parallel mass rallies by Shafiq and Morsi supporters were held in different parts of Cairo and cut-throat media attacks by supporters of both swarmed TV shows. In the hours before the announcement of the winner, the fear of new violence was palpable.

Heavy security was deployed around the country, especially outside state institutions, in anticipation of possible violence. Workers were sent home early from jobs, jewelry stores closed for fear of looting and many were stocking up on food and forming long lines at cash machines in case new troubles began.

Morsi, the 60-year old U.S.-trained engineer, narrowly defeated Shafiq with 51.7 percent of the vote versus 48.3, by a margin of only 800,000 votes, the election commission said. Turnout was 51 percent.

Farouk Sultan, the head of the commission, described the elections as "an important phase in the end of building our nascent democratic experience."

Sultan went to pains to explain the more than 400 complaints presented by the two candidates challenging counting procedures and alleging attempts of rigging. It appeared to be an attempt to discredit claims that the election commission was biased in favor of Shafiq, the candidate perceived as backed by the military rulers.

The country is deeply divided between supporters of the Brotherhood, liberals and leftists who also decided to back them as a way to stand up to the military, and other secular forces that fear the domination of the Brotherhood, and grew critical of it in the past year. The small margin of victory for Morsi also sets him for a strong opposition from supporters of Shafiq, viewed as a representative of the old regime.

Naguib Sawiris, a Coptic Christian business tycoon who joined a liberal bloc in voicing opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood a day before the results were announced, said he expects the new president to send a reassuring message to Egypt's Christian minority who represent around 10 percent of the population of 85 million.

"There are fears of imposing an Islamic state ... where Christians don't have same rights," Sawiris told the private TV station CBC. Morsi "is required to prove the opposite. ... We don't want speeches or promises but in the coming period, it is about taking action. ... He was not our choice but we are accepting it is a democratic choice."

Hamdeen Sabahi, a leftist presidential candidate who came in a surprising third place in the first round of elections, asked Morsi to live up to his pledges to form a national coalition government and appoint presidential aides from different groups "that express the largest national consensus."

Khaled Abdel-Hamid, a leading leftist politician, said Morsi must fight to get his powers back or he will lose any popular support he may have garnered.

"If he fights to get his power back, we will support him. But if he doesn't fight back, then he is settling for siding with the military," he said.

Egypt Revolts: plumber beats pregnant wife to death because she didn't vote for Morsi

Egyptian Beats Pregnant Wife to Death For Not Voting for Mursi

An Egyptian plumber beat his wife to death upon learning that she had not voted for Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Mursi.

By Rachel HirshfeldFirst Publish: 6/25/2012, 2:44 AM

An Egyptian plumber in Alexandria beat his pregnant wife to death upon learning that she had not voted for Muslim Brotherhood presidential candidate Mohammed Mursi, the Egyptian daily al-Wafd reported on Sunday.

According to police reports, the initial argument between the unnamed couple escalated into a violent death, despite the pleas of the battered and bruised wife. She was reported to have died at the hospital from injuries sustained.

Domestic fights have dominated Egyptian news headlines when the bid fell on the two most feared and most controversial candidates, Mursi and former prime minister Ahmed Shafiq, Al-Arabiya news reported.

Mohammed Morsi was declared the winner in Egypt's first free presidential election in history by the country's elections commission on Sunday.

In his first televised speech on state TV, Morsi pledged Sunday to preserve Egypt's international accords, alluding reference to the peace deal with Israel.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu issued an official reaction to Mursi’s victory saying, "Israel appreciates the democratic process in Egypt and respects its results," said Netanyahu.